Advice and experts with 400 series Cessnas (414 and 421), purchase and training

wrote in message
news:1104532621.47695f51644ac10c93563568d2bcd3af@t eranews...

You'd get liability coverage so that if you crashed it INTO something
thei insurance company would cover what you hit. You'd probably get
"not in motion" hull coverage so if the hangar collapsed you'd be covered.
You'd skip the "in motion" hull coverage (which is the bulk of the
premium).

Then, if you crashed, you'd have to pay to repair it or decide it's not
repairable and sell the aircraft for salvage. In any survivable accident
the salvage value is likely to be pretty high.

Someone was telling me that the hull portion was the least portion of
the premium. I'm guessing it is the liability, i.e., I crash, kill
everyone on board, their families sue, damage/casualties on the
ground, etc.


The hull coverage is going to be the largest component of insurance by far.
On a $400K hull with a low time multi pilot, hull might be 90% of the total
premium.

Mike
MU-2

wrote:

Someone was telling me that the hull portion was the least portion of
the premium.

The cost of the hull premium varies with the value of the plane, so that person
might be correct. For something like an Ercoupe. I have my plane insured for a
hull value of $60,000, and the hull premium is by far the largest portion of the
bill.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

wrote in message
news:1104443885.3fb6f23b35455ac79c342aee9241e5cd@t eranews...

Wow, in one brief post you managed to contain at least three of the great
flamewar topics- insurance, relative safety of twins, and real operating
costs. Not bad!

I am trying to map out how I want to proceed going to the next step. I
want to get my instrument rating, and possibly multi (which, of course
I'd do, if I went for a twin).

Since it makes sense to get your rating in a plane you own, and the
400-series Cessna are terrible for this type of work (hell on the engines)
I'd look to buy something to get the rating in and then build some time in
before stepping up. You may even find the step-up unnecessary as many people
overestimate what they really need. A light twin like a Seminole or Aztec
might be a good choice, since the smaller engines won't eat you alive on
costs and it's docile enough to be a good training platform, but you're
building multi time which will help you when time comes to insure something
bigger. I just don't see making the step-up from a low-time 182 pilot to a
400 series right away.

As for insurance, I'd look for a pilot with lots of hours in type to
add as first insured. The best case would be to find a CFII, MEI that
would want time in type, could train me in my plane until I'm ready
and have enough time in type, and could use my plane part of the time.

If you were near Boston I'd have the guy for you. Ask the owners of those
421's you've seen who they use. Quite often the best CFIs are not the ones
hanging around the flight school waiting for students to walk in the door.

Best,
-cwk.

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 16:59:13 GMT, "Colin W Kingsbury"
wrote:


wrote in message
news:1104443885.3fb6f23b35455ac79c342aee9241e5cd@ teranews...

Wow, in one brief post you managed to contain at least three of the great
flamewar topics- insurance, relative safety of twins, and real operating
costs. Not bad!

Heh heh.

Since it makes sense to get your rating in a plane you own, and the
400-series Cessna are terrible for this type of work (hell on the engines)
I'd look to buy something to get the rating in and then build some time in
before stepping up. You may even find the step-up unnecessary as many people
overestimate what they really need. A light twin like a Seminole or Aztec
might be a good choice, since the smaller engines won't eat you alive on
costs and it's docile enough to be a good training platform, but you're
building multi time which will help you when time comes to insure something
bigger. I just don't see making the step-up from a low-time 182 pilot to a
400 series right away.

I had a talk with a local A/P who specializes in 421s. He gave me a
lot of good info, including the point that I should not to my multi in
a 421. The club I'm in has a Piper Seminole and Seneca II. I might get
my multi in the Seminole, get a checkout in the Seneca, and fly only
twins until I buy. I'm sure that would save a 421s engines unnecessary
wear and tear, and I'd be building muti time.


If you were near Boston I'd have the guy for you. Ask the owners of those
421's you've seen who they use. Quite often the best CFIs are not the ones
hanging around the flight school waiting for students to walk in the door.

Yeah, I'll have to do a lot of local searching. The A/P says he knows
someone who does instruction in 421s. He seems to have a lot of
connections relating to that aircraft.

John Szpara
Affordable Satellite
Fiero Owner 2-84 Indy Pace cars, 86 Coupe, 88 Formula 3.4, 88 Coupe, 88GT

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 16:59:13 GMT, "Colin W Kingsbury"
wrote:


wrote in message
news:1104443885.3fb6f23b35455ac79c342aee9241e5cd@ teranews...


Since it makes sense to get your rating in a plane you own, and the
400-series Cessna are terrible for this type of work (hell on the engines)
I'd look to buy something to get the rating in and then build some time in
before stepping up. You may even find the step-up unnecessary as many people
overestimate what they really need. A light twin like a Seminole or Aztec
might be a good choice, since the smaller engines won't eat you alive on
costs and it's docile enough to be a good training platform, but you're
building multi time which will help you when time comes to insure something
bigger. I just don't see making the step-up from a low-time 182 pilot to a
400 series right away.

If he wants to do the slow transition route of being able to get his
twin rating and still carry passengers and luggage around, I would go
for the Seneca II T. I fly both the Seneca II T and a 421C quiet
often (at least once a week each) and I can tell you that I can out
climb the 421 in the Seneca II any day. The Seminole is for training
only IMHO. The engines are just to small for any use full load, but
the Seneca II will carry 4 passengers with their luggage and full fuel
just fine.

The 421C is very nice but with the fuel that it uses, around 44GPH
compared to the Seneca's 22GPH, the speed difference that you get
between the two is not worth the fuel. Yes the 421 has a higher
service ceiling, but if he is going to train in the 421, he is going
to be real hard on those geared engines, which are not cheap. I cant
say much about the B model as I only have one flight in it but it was
a dog and I really hated being in it.

Scott D.


Scott D

To email remove spamcatcher

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 13:58:07 -0800, wrote:

Update

I've eliminated the 421 as the first plane. I've been having a long
discussion on the cessna pilot's association forum, and the 421 isn't
the right airplane for now.

I've made a list of planes I'd be interested in:

T210
P210
T310
320
340

The 340 would be nice, but the costs and complexity are too close to
the 421, so it is basically out. I could use some opinions on the
others. I've pretty much decided to get my instrument rating in a
single first, then go from there.

I could also use some recommendations on instrument rating programs
here in the Bay Area. All clubs offer them, but it is difficult to
know which one is best.
John Szpara
Affordable Satellite
Fiero Owner 2-84 Indy Pace cars, 86 Coupe, 88 Formula 3.4, 88 Coupe, 88GT

On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 15:35:06 -0800, john szpara
wrote:

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 13:58:07 -0800, wrote:

Update

I've eliminated the 421 as the first plane. I've been having a long
discussion on the cessna pilot's association forum, and the 421 isn't
the right airplane for now.

Good decision,

I've made a list of planes I'd be interested in:

T210
P210
T310
320
340

Just kind of curious as to why you have eliminated everything but
Cessna products. Piper and Beech also have good small single and twin
aircraft with comparable price. For the single engine, look at the
Bonanza, it has better performance in almost all categories. And for
the twin, I would also look at the Beech Baron or the Piper Seneca's.
If it is just because your familiar with Cessna products, don't short
yourself. I don't know what kind of aircraft that you have been
taught it (suspecting a 172) but if you are looking for
familiarization and easy transition into a larger plane, the 210 is
the only plane on your list that would look similar to the 172. After
that, the panels and their flight characteristics, IMHO, are no where
close. But I can't speak for the 340 as I have never flown or even
been in one but I am suspecting it is similar to the 320.

The 340 would be nice, but the costs and complexity are too close to
the 421, so it is basically out. I could use some opinions on the
others. I've pretty much decided to get my instrument rating in a
single first, then go from there.

Good decision on getting the Instrument in a single engine. I would
suggest getting it in like a 172 because things happen a lot slower
and it gives your mind a chance to react and make decisions before you
go blowing thru a localizer or you cross a fix before deciding what
type of hold entry you are suppose to be making.

Good luck.

Scott D.
Scott D

To email remove spamcatcher

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 11:04:55 -0700, Scott D. wrote:


Just kind of curious as to why you have eliminated everything but
Cessna products. Piper and Beech also have good small single and twin
aircraft with comparable price. For the single engine, look at the
Bonanza, it has better performance in almost all categories. And for
the twin, I would also look at the Beech Baron or the Piper Seneca's.
If it is just because your familiar with Cessna products, don't short
yourself. I don't know what kind of aircraft that you have been
taught it (suspecting a 172) but if you are looking for
familiarization and easy transition into a larger plane, the 210 is
the only plane on your list that would look similar to the 172. After

I've done a lot of reading and research, checking performance numbers,
operating costs and flying characteristcs. There is nothing special
about the Pipers. I've flown the Warrior, Archer and Arrow. Bonanzas
evidently are very sensitive to CG. I have time in a Mooney 231, great
airplane, but barely 4 pax, forget fuel and baggage. Also a bit crampt
compared to most Cessnas.

For the money, a T210 is a better overall buy. I've flown them before,
and love 'em. Fast, powerful, heavy feeling (feels smoother in
flight), good loading numbers.

I don't know much about the Piper twins, but the Cessnas seem to fit
the bill for me nicely. Perhaps I should consider, say, a Seneca
turbo, but if I want cabin class, the 340, 414 and 421 would be a
better goal (although a Navajo would fit the bill as well).

that, the panels and their flight characteristics, IMHO, are no where
close. But I can't speak for the 340 as I have never flown or even
been in one but I am suspecting it is similar to the 320.

The 340 is quite different. The 320 is *slightly* larger than a 310,
but you wouldn't be able to tell that much just looking at it. The 340
is cabin-class, a bit shorter and narrower than a 400-series. You
might have trouble telling a 340 from a 414 just looking at the
pictures.

Good decision on getting the Instrument in a single engine. I would
suggest getting it in like a 172 because things happen a lot slower
and it gives your mind a chance to react and make decisions before you
go blowing thru a localizer or you cross a fix before deciding what
type of hold entry you are suppose to be making.

Yeah, I need to take a slower track on this. No problem, I have lots
of time to figure things out after I get my instrument rating.

John Szpara
Affordable Satellite
Fiero Owner 2-84 Indy Pace cars, 86 Coupe, 88 Formula 3.4, 88 Coupe, 88GT

Look at the safety numbers for a Cheyenne I.
Safest twin flying.